Title
Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. L-58889
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1986
Deputy sheriff Manipon convicted of direct bribery for accepting P1,000 to lift garnishment; entrapment with marked money upheld; Sandiganbayan ruling affirmed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58889)

Factual Background

Nathaniel S. Manipon, Jr. was tasked with enforcing a labor arbiter's decision, which required Harry Dominguez, a building contractor and municipal mayor of Tadian, to pay a sum of P2,720.00 to the laborers. Manipon garnished Dominguez’s bank accounts but failed to carry out his duties properly thereafter. Dominguez later approached Manipon, inquiring about withdrawing the garnished funds. Subsequent interactions led to the conclusion that Manipon solicited a bribe to lift the garnishment order.

Entrapment Operation

On December 28, 1979, a plan to entrap Manipon was orchestrated by Dominguez in collaboration with law enforcement agents after Manipon indicated he could facilitate the withdrawal of the garnished funds for a consideration. During the operation, marked bills were provided, and Manipon accepted P1,000.00 after lifting the garnishment order. This led to his apprehension by the officers involved in the entrapment, who confirmed the exchange and identified the marked money on Manipon.

Charges and Legal Proceedings

Initially charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, the charge was subsequently amended to reflect direct bribery under the Revised Penal Code after the investigation. Manipon was released on bail and entered a plea of not guilty. His defense hinged on the assertion that the P1,000.00 he received was for partial satisfaction of the judgment, not a bribe.

Elements of Direct Bribery

The legal definition of direct bribery as stipulated in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code necessitates that: (1) the accused be a public officer; (2) he received a gift or promise; (3) this was in consideration for performing an act within his official capacity; and (4) the act relates to the functions of the public officer. The court confirmed that these elements were satisfied in Manipon’s case.

Defense Arguments and Court's Response

Manipon’s defense claimed that the arrangement with Dominguez was legitimate and agreed upon by the creditors. However, the court found this assertion unconvincing due to the lack of documentation and the implausibility of verbal agreements made in such a critical context. The court pointed out the contradictions in Manipon's statements and the glaring absence of credible evidence to support his defense.

Irregularities and Credibility Issues

The court noted several irregularities in Manipon’s actions, including his failure to promptly inform the labor arbiter about the garnishment or its lifting. His behavior leading up to the crime also raised suspicions, combined with his inconsistent explanations regarding the handling of the garnished funds and communicati

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.